793.94/3046: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Shaw) to the Secretary of State
848. From Ambassador Dawes. Following report is from Sweetser:
“Ito informed the Drafting Committee this afternoon of the action taken by its delegation following yesterday’s meeting on the two points outstanding with the Japanese. As regards the first involving Japan’s right to take police action against bandits he stated the delegation had cabled Tokyo recommending the dropping of any such provision from either the resolution or declaration and substituting in its place a unilateral declaration by the Japanese delegate. Should Tokyo agree the Japanese delegation would give the members of the Council an advance copy.
The second point involving the relationship of the commission to evacuation showed a decided difference of conception of the commission as between the Japanese and the other Council members. Ito explained that his Government feared that the mandate of the commission would be modified by the last paragraph of article 5. That mandate he said was very wide and would cover ‘all circumstances’ while if at the end a special power were added the nature of the commission would thereby be changed.
In this case Japan would have a fundamental objection and would have to reconsider the whole idea of the commission of inquiry. His Government had at the outset not been able to agree to a special committee of inquiry in the Manchurian incident because it felt that that incident was but one element developing out of a long background. It had now proposed a general commission however to study the whole relationship between China and Japan recognizing of course that one of the elements in the situation was the present Manchurian situation. To meet the difficulty he proposed a personal text which he had already cabled to Tokyo as follows: ‘Within the scope of the above mandate, the commission can, after its arrival in China, be charged by the Council to furnish it information on the execution of the resolution of September 30th.’
Cecil had accepted this draft yesterday for himself; the other members of the Committee seemed inclined at first to do likewise. But difficulties soon developed. Would this mean that the Council would have to meet especially to give this authority which would seem both unnecessary and cumbersome or could the President be authorized to do it on his own? Would such action by the Council require unanimity which would reduce the provision to nothing? Would not the phraseology limit the commission and withhold what should be a normal power until that power was specifically granted? Finally, what hope would there be of getting the Chinese, who clung so tenaciously to this last remnant of a time limit for the evacuation, to accept substitutions?
Ito was impressed by these difficulties, particularly as to unanimity and agreed to re-consult his delegation. After his departure Cecil [Page 628] said he had suggested yesterday to Ito that it might be best to drop this from the resolution and include it in the declaration which Ito seemed to accept. If that were done Cecil pointed out the Council’s ideas could be put in clear direct terms, which would satisfy the Chinese more fully and save the Japanese from their obvious embarrassment that the commission was going further than they had anticipated.
2. Military reports were circulated today and particularly commented in view of Tokyo press despatches that Honjo had warned Chang to withdraw from Chinchow. The French observers in that district report that there has been no appreciable change since November 27th: the number of troops remain the same; the trains are running regularly; and no requisition of wagons for the transport of Chinese troops has been reported on the Tientsin line. The British saw no evidence of the banditry alleged at Paikipu and stated there had been no movement of Chinese troops north of the Wall.”
- [Dawes]
- Shaw
- Telegram in three sections.↩